Peter The Great Grates On Owners

Question--Would you explain the two-day baseball strike and tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Answer--I will, your honor.

Q--Who won?

A--That`s easy. The players won again. They are 89-0 against the owners. Q--Why did the players win?

A--Peter the Great was on their side.

Q--The Russian Emperor?

A--No, Peter Ueberroth I, the baseball emperor.

Q--What did he do?

A--He forced the owners` negotiators into a settlement.

Q--Does he have that kind of power?

A--Absolute power. He told the owners` bargaining committee, ``Take this deal or I`ll settle it myself.`` He may have also threatened to send them to Siberia.

Q--Are the owners angry?

A--They`re so angry they refuse to talk about it.

Q--Could you explain further?

A--As an example, I spoke to a National League owner Friday, 48 hours after the settlement. I figured he had cooled off. I asked him for his views. He said, ``I`ll talk but only if it`s off the record.`` I didn`t want that. I wanted it to be on the record. But he was so adamant, I said, ``Okay, it`s off the record.``

Q--And what did he say?

A--He said, ``Off the record, I`m so mad I don`t even want to talk about it.``

Q--Have any of the owners gone on the record?

A--Yes, Eddie Chiles of the Texas Rangers. He said ``I think dammit!

That`s what I think!`` And more than any other of the 26 owners, Chiles probably has liked Ueberroth the best. Several months ago, Chiles was in financial distress and sold partial interest in his club to Gaylord Broadcasting of Oklahoma City, a so-called superstation. The American League owners, in a formal vote, rejected the sale. A month later Ueberroth overturned the vote and approved the Gaylord purchase. Chiles has been a big supporter of Ueberroth ever since. Or rather until now.

Q--What did Peter the Great do? Do you think he would mind me referring to him as Peter the Great?

A--Not at all. Either that, or King Ubie the First.

Q--What did Peter the Great do to the owners?

A--In forcing a settlement, he made the owners` negotiators abandon the demand for an arbitration cap; that is, under their proposal, players going to arbitration could not be awarded more than a 100 percent increase from their previous salary.

Q--Was this important?

A--It was more than important. It will cost the owners about $200 million during the length of the agreement, which is for five years.

Q--Can the owners do anything about it?

A--There seems to be some question about that. Nonetheless, a ``Dump Ubie`` movement is organizing. He could be gone before Christmas.

Q--Is he a good man?

A--He`s very good on network television. I wouldn`t be surprised if he announced his resignation on TV, immediately after the final game of the World Series. Eighty million people would be watching. It would be the great sports soap opera of our time.

Q--Would it be a mistake to dump him?

A--That`s not for me to decide. I don`t have a vote. I was discussing this with Don Drysdale and he said the owners should cool down and keep him because he`s good at raising money. It could be said Ubie giveth and Ubie taketh away. He ran the L.A. Olympics and came away with a $200 million profit, about the same amount he took away from the owners.

Q--Why are you so certain that if he hadn`t imposed the settlement the owners would have saved $200 million.

A--Because for the first time the owners had the players on the run. The owners were winning, not the players, and everbody knew it--including the negotiators for both sides.

Q--Why, after all these years of losing, were the owners suddenly winning?

A--Because their demands were not unreasonable. Also, after going 0-for- 88, they were entitled.

Q--Could you describe the mood of the players once the strike began?

A--Nobody can be certain about these things, but on the day before the strike began, a surprising number of players had begun expressing doubts. I had the definite impression that in two weeks, three at the most, a majority of the players would have been clamoring to settle on the owners` terms.

Q--What would have been wrong with that?

A--Nothing. But I don`t think the union leaders would have settled. They were prepared to go the route. What was developing, in my view, was a strike, not between the 700 members of the Players Association, but a fierce battle between the union leaders, which includes the player reps, and the owners.

Q--Correct me if I`m wrong, but are you suggesting that the union leaders would have prolonged the strike even if a significant minority, or possibly a slight majority, would have preferred to return?

A--Precisely. The union leaders were so adamant for another victory, the early indications were that they would not have paid much attention to the membership-at-large. This is something that many players seldom realize. Once they authorize a strike, they`re pretty much out of it. The militants take over and try to win at any cost, even if it means suicide.

Q--What about the pension money? Didn`t the players win a 100 percent increase for their fund?